Michael Hoffman’s Analysis: Mr. Trump has been a better toady of counterfeit-Israel than Mr. Obama, yet in the following command issued by the High Priests in New York, we observe the never-satisfied element inherent in the supremacist Talmudic mentality: the goy is always a defective creature from whom perpetual “atonement” is required. Anything short of golem-like robotic compliance is met with supercilious scolding and further “moral tests” issued by the holier-than-thou neo-Pharisees.

The goy can find “redemption” only in genuflecting under the spell of the magic wand of Holocaust benediction. The following editorial, “Trump and the Holocaust Remembrance: A Second Chance,” reeks of vanity and moral superiority, of which the New York Times is probably unconscious, in that it is so habitual. There is not a thought given to the necessity of special commemoration of all of the other holocausts of World War II—the civilians of every German city incinerated by the Allies, the Russian civilians of Stalingrad massacred by the Nazis, the Poles butchered by the Soviets at Katyn, and the Japanese civilians—of Tokyo (massacred by firebombing) and Hiroshima and Nagasaki (holocausted by atomic bombing).

It is a sorcerer’s feat out of the Zohar's grimoirethatall these holocausts are reduced to a tiny footnote in the sacred liturgy of the one and only Holocaust worth commemorating, that of planet earth’s one and only Holy People.

Michael Hoffman is the author of The Great Holocaust Trial, which, at one time or another has been banned by the Israeli, German and Canadian governments.

Saturday is International Holocaust Remembrance Day. For President Trump, it is a shot at redemption. He failed a moral test on the same occasion a year ago when he issued a message that strangely left out any specific reference to the six million Jews murdered in the Nazis’ industrialized genocide. The White House cast the omission as somehow an “inclusive” approach because, it said, Roma, gays, the disabled and others were also victims. But Jews were unique targets. Failing to mention them was as bizarre as it would be to write a history of slavery and ignore the ordeal of Africans brought to America in chains.

It was an example of Mr. Trump’s complex, at times disturbing, instincts in regard to Jews.

On one hand, his elder daughter is a convert to Judaism, married to an observant Jew. His years in New York real estate involved frequent dealings with Jewish counterparts. He has thrilled many American Jews by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital (though he’s displeased many more of them, who fear that this will impede the search for Middle East peace). At a ceremony on Capitol Hill in April, he spoke forcefully about the Holocaust as he pledged “never again.”

But there’s always another hand with Mr. Trump, and it can be unsightly.

After a march that included neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Va., last summer, the president said that there were “very fine people” among them. No, there weren’t. There are no very fine Nazis, neo or otherwise.

He has passed along tweets from unabashedly anti-Semitic accounts, and has been slow to denounce assaults, vandalism and other Jew-hating acts, which the Anti-Defamation League says have risen sharply. In the first nine months of 2017, the latest period with available numbers, the league reported there were 1,299 such episodes, an increase of 67 percent over the 779 recorded in the same stretch of 2016.

As with other minorities, Mr. Trump is not above indulging in glib, often hurtful stereotypes, like the age-old trope of greedy Jews. There was his campaign image of the six-pointed star and cash cascading down on Hillary Clinton, and his assertion that Mrs. Clinton “meets in secret with international banks to plot the destruction of U.S. sovereignty.” And there was this to Jewish Republican donors: “Is there anybody that doesn’t renegotiate deals in this room? This room negotiates them —Perhaps more than any room I’ve ever spoken to.”

Unlike previous presidents, Mr. Trump couldn’t be bothered on a July visit to Warsaw to stop at the site of that city’s notorious Jewish ghetto. In May he visited the Yad Vashem memorial to the Holocaust in Jerusalem, but offended some people by zipping through it far too quickly to absorb its poignancy and power. Then he signed the guest book with a discordantly, but typically, self-referential entry: “It is a great honor to be here with all of my friends — so amazing + will never forget!”

“I am the least anti-Semitic person that you’ve ever seen in your entire life,” Mr. Trump has said with characteristic grandiosity. That is of course a claim beyond measurement. No one can know what is in his heart. But we do know what is in his public statements — and also what is not, like his expunging of Hitler’s greatest victims from last January’s Holocaust message. He can make Saturday his day of atonement. — New York Times

_____________________

Operation Sabotage the Memo

What are Adam Schiff, the Justice Department and the FBI trying to hide?

"The slippery shadow in all this is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein."

Rep. Adam Schiff has many talents, though few compare to his ability to function as a human barometer of Democratic panic. The greater the level of Schiff hot, pressured air, the more trouble the party knows it’s in.

Mr. Schiff’s millibars have been popping ever since the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, on which he is ranking Democrat, last week voted to make a classified GOP memo about FBI election year abuses available to every House member. Mr. Schiff has spit and spun and apoplectically accused his Republican colleagues of everything short of treason. The memo, he insists, is “profoundly misleading,” not to mention “distorted” and “political,” and an attack on the Federal Bureau of Investigation. He initially tried to block his colleagues from reading it. Having failed, he’s now arguing Americans can know the full story only if they see the underlying classified documents.

This is highly convenient, given the Justice Department retains those documents and is as eager to make them public as a fox is to abandon the henhouse. Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes had to threaten a contempt citation simply to get permission for his committee to gain access, and even then investigators had to leave Capitol Hill to view them, and were allowed only to take notes. Mr. Nunes has no authority to declassify them. The best he can do in his continuing transparency efforts is to summarize their contents. Only in Schiff land is sunshine suddenly a pollutant.

The Schiff pressure gauge is outmatched only by the Justice Department and the FBI, which are now mobilizing their big guns to squelch the truth. That included a Wednesday Justice Department letter to Mr. Nunes—written by Assistant Attorney General Stephen Boyd, designed as a memo to the media, copied to its allies in Washington, and immediately leaked to the public. And the department wonders why anyone doubts the integrity of all its hardworking professionals.

Mr. Boyd gets in his cheap shots, for instance slamming Mr. Nunes for moving to release a memo based on documents that Mr. Nunes hasn’t even “seen.” He apparently thinks Rep. Trey Gowdy —the experienced former federal prosecutor Mr. Nunes asked to conduct the review of those docs—isn’t qualified to judge questions of national security. He hyperventilates that it would be “reckless” for the committee to make its memo public without first letting the Justice Department review it and “advise [the committee] of the risk of harm to national security.” Put another way, it is Mr. Boyd’s position that the Justice Department gets to provide oversight of Congress. The Constitution has it the other way around.

The bigger, swampier game here is to rally media pressure, and to mau-mau Mr. Nunes into giving the department a veto over the memo’s release. Ask Sen. Chuck Grassley how that goes. Mr. Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, recently sent a referral to the department for a criminal probe into dossier author Christopher Steele. He then in good faith asked the department its views on an unclassified portion of that referral that he wants to make public. The department invented a classified reason to block public release, and has refused to budge for weeks.

The Boyd letter is also a first step toward a bigger prize: President Trump. Under House rules, a majority of the Intelligence Committee can vote to declassify the memo. Mr. Trump then has up to five days to object to its release. If he doesn’t object, the memo goes public. If he does, a majority of the House would have to vote to override him.

The shrieks of reckless harm and national security are designed to pressure Mr. Trump to object. And wait for it: In coming days the Justice Department’s protectors will gin up a separate, desperate claim that Mr. Trump will somehow be “interfering” in special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe unless he objects to the release. According to this view, it is Mr. Trump’s obligation not just to sit by while the media and the Mueller team concoct their narrative, but to block any evidence that might undercut it.

The slippery shadow in all this is Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ recusal put Mr. Rosenstein in charge of digging into the actions—right or wrong—of the Justice Department and FBI in 2016. Instead of taking up that challenge, he named an old and dear friend of the FBI as special counsel, and directed him only to look at Mr. Trump. And Mr. Rosenstein appears to have signed up as an active participant in the effort to thwart any congressional investigation of the other side of the issue.

A department head interested in truth doesn’t flout subpoenas. He doesn’t do a runaround of the Intelligence Committee and try to sucker House Speaker Paul Ryan into aiding a stonewall by asking him to intervene just before a deadline and block a contempt citation. He doesn’t sit on the knowledge of outrageous texts between FBI agents and force Congress to drag it out of him. And he doesn’t sign off on the leaks and character assassination in which his department daily engages to undermine Congress.

Thursday, January 25, 2018

In the January issue of Revisionist History® newsletter we document the significant role of Éliphas Levi, a “traditional Catholic,” in introducing Satan into the Feminist movement; utterly factual, but many “Catholics” run from the truth.

Levi's demonic conspiracy in the pontificate of Pius IX was immune to charges of heresy or ecclesiastical interference of any kind. He enjoyed protection at the highest levels of the Church of Rome and while doing so he helped to navigate the Feminist movement in the direction of hell. Many of the leading Feminists of the nineteenth century, who are today enshrined at the Women’s Rights National Park, were his disciples. One complained that her only objection to Levi was that he was too closely tied to Rome!

We realize that this type of historical revelation makes us more unpopular than we already are, but we prefer bankruptcy to betraying our mission of pursuing the truth at any cost.

In our processed and programmed Revelation-of-the-Method era, Pope Francis is the publicly manifested face of a long line of diabolic pontiffs who, prior to the 1960s, perpetrated their occult crimes and subversion of Jesus Christ under a deep cover Right wing conservative cloak, which continues to hoodwink “traditional” and “conservative Catholics” to this day. Human nature being what it is, most people want to be fooled. Christ’s true followers do not.

Tuesday, January 23, 2018

“I am not a subject, I am not a slave and I am not a serf, and I will not be treated as such."

The Bundy family in 2014

By Michael Hoffman

Idaho, USA — Here in the mountain West we have the privilege of knowing and living among more than a few descendants of pioneer families who continue to work and reside on their ancestor's lands, claimed from the wilderness in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

These are regular folks who were born and raised without a welfare mentality or a sense of entitlement. In the real West there’s no attitude of “the-world-owes-me-a-living.” Youth are raised with the expectation that hard work brings rewards. It’s a lesson enforced over three or four generations.

We don’t pretend to know all the twists and turns of the Cliven Bundy ranching family and we certainly don’t know them personally, but the type of support they attract out here is about as bedrock American as one can find. The report below, reproduced from the New York Times, is not half as snippy and partisan as one might imagine, although it expresses the monotonous East coast dismay that Westerners are occasionally taking the law into their own hands (even as the New York Times endorses "sanctuary cities" and other forms of politically-correct law-breaking). If civil disobedience was o.k. for Martin Luther King Jr. and in the present, Gov. Jerry Brown in California, why is it wrong for ranchers seeking local control of the land? The Times doesn’t pose the question.

Federal prosecutors withheld evidence that might have assisted Cliven Bundy’s defense and a courageous lady judge threw out the case against him, on the basis of prosecutor malfeasance, for which there should be criminal penalties. All the accused members of the Bundy family are free. They were blessed to have eluded the government-murderers who massacred the Waco “compound” in Texas, the wife and son of Randy Weaver in north Idaho, and tax protestor Gordon Kahl.

Though Bundy cites the U.S. Constitution, the deepest source of what is at stake is the Biblical concept of title to the land held in allodium, based on the inhabitation and defense of it. Families who fit that description scare the pants off the Cryptocracy, which fears Americans’ attachment to the land. Beelzebub seeks to devolve us into a rootless, landless peonage, buying at Wal-Mart, in debt for life to predatory lenders, and reliant on the Democratic party for an increase in government handouts. Those who dare to reject this soulless serfdom are reviled by the Cryptocracy’s revolutionary Bolshevik mob as beneficiaries of “white privilege.”

I don’t speak for the Bundys or the sagebrush rebellion, but my personal riposte to that nonsense is to quote from the eminent French novelist Louis-Ferdinand Céline: “I feel persecuted because I am not Jewish.”

Or we might as well go Céline one better here in the USA: “I feel persecuted because I am not ____ " (fill in the blank: Latino, black, Native American).

As a revisionist historian I bear witness to the most deeply suppressed fact in the annals of our nation: it was white slave labor that first built America.

PARADISE, Montana — Cliven Bundy was fresh out of jail, and so the nation’s most controversial rancher strode into the frontier town of Paradise and called on hundreds of supporters — a sea of cattlemen, timber workers and star-struck children — to follow in his footsteps.

“Go and read your Constitution,” he said, telling the crowd on Saturday to reject federal control of millions of acres of American landscapes. Washington, he declared, has no business “telling you how to graze your cattle, cut your timber, mine your mines.”

In 2014, when his fight over cattle grazing led to an armed standoff with federal agents, Mr. Bundy became a symbol of defiance for rural Westerners angry over the government’s management of public lands.

By the time he walked free this month, that issue had become a national flash point. The Trump administration has moved to open more lands to mining, drilling and logging, to the cheers of land-rights activists and commercial interests and the dismay of environmentalists.

Mr. Bundy’s case has also become a study in government wrongdoing. After declaring a mistrial, Judge Gloria M. Navarro of Federal District Court in Las Vegas said that prosecutors had willfully withheld a trove of potentially exculpatory information from Mr. Bundy’s legal team, committing “flagrant prosecutorial misconduct.” The Justice Department opened an investigation into its lawyers’ actions, and Mr. Bundy, his sons Ammon and Ryan, and a supporter named Ryan C. Payne were released. Judge Navarro dismissed the charges against them “with prejudice,” meaning they cannot be retried.

Now, the Bundys’ freedom is playing out on parallel tracks in the West. On one track is Mr. Bundy, 71, who went on a victory trip this weekend, driving some 15 hours from his ranch in Bunkerville, Nev., to give a speech at the request of a group called the Coalition of Western Property Owners.

Paradise, Mont., is a slip of a town between snow-dusted mountains north of Missoula. It is a place where people have long said that restrictive federal land policies are strangling their livelihoods. On Saturday, at least 300 people crowded the town schoolhouse, declaring that the judge’s blistering critique was proof of what they had said for years: The federal government is corrupt and out to destroy rural people like Mr. Bundy.

“He’s my idol,” said Chaleen Hill, 38, who runs an operation that rescues unwanted horses, and said that her family gave up its ranch after conflicts with the United States Forest Service made running it too difficult. She stood by Mr. Bundy and vowed to “stand up beside him with a gun on my horse” if the government returned to take his cows.

“Clive,” she said, pressing a pocket Constitution into his hands, “do you have a second to sign this for me?”

On another track are environmentalists, government workers and many others who worry that Mr. Bundy’s freedom will embolden people who oppose a federal land policy — the designation of a new national monument, for example, or a ban on mining by a national park — to mount an armed protest.

“The legacy of this is going to persist,” said Mark Fiege, a professor of Western history at Montana State University, who said that much of his anger fell on the federal prosecutors who appear to have bungled the case. “It seemed cut and dry to many of us,” he said. “How did they blow it?”

The Bundy family has lived in southern Nevada for generations, grazing cattle on a portion of the hundreds of millions of acres throughout the West that are owned by the federal government.

In 1993, Mr. Bundy declined to renew his grazing permit, saying that he did not recognize Washington’s claim to those acres. By 2014, when the authorities began to confiscate his livestock over more than $1 million in unpaid grazing fees, hundreds of armed supporters rallied to his side. The federal agents, outnumbered, released the cattle and went home.

The standoff called into question the government’s ability to enforce the law on public land, a question that only deepened when Mr. Bundy’s sons Ammon and Ryan began an armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon two years later.

The brothers and five others involved in the standoff were acquitted in October 2016 of all federal charges after contending that they were merely protesting the government’s actions and had posed no threat. After that, the Nevada trial of the elder Mr. Bundy appeared to be the government’s last chance to show that disobeying the law on public land would not be tolerated.

Cliven, Ammon and Ryan Bundy and Mr. Payne were charged with assault, obstruction of justice, extortion, conspiracy to impede federal officers from doing their jobs and other charges that could have landed them in prison for years.

But weeks into the trial, Judge Navarro said that government lawyers had withheld at least six pieces of information that could have assisted the defense, including evidence of federal snipers near the Bundy home and reports that indicated that “the likelihood of violence from Cliven Bundy is minimal.”

Under a 1963 Supreme Court decision, prosecutors are required to hand over all material that could be helpful to defendants. Taken together, the withheld evidence seemed to boost the Bundys’ claim that they had gathered a crowd not to assault federal agents, but to protest treatment by officers who had set up a military-style operation by their ranch. Compounding the lawyers’ failure was the release of a whistle-blower report by a federal employee named Larry C. Wooten, who alleged that the federal Bureau of Land Management had conducted “the most intrusive, oppressive, large scale, and militaristic trespass cattle impound possible,” at the ranch, and that the government’s lead prosecutor, Steven W. Myhre, appeared to be overlooking evidence of this “in order to win.”

In a legal memo, Mr. Myhre wrote that his team’s failure to disclose materials had occasionally been due to “simple inadvertence,” but in most instances took place because prosecutors believed the evidence was not relevant to the defendants’ case.

“The government did not withhold material to gain a tactical advantage,” he wrote. “Rather, it litigated these issues in good faith.”

Steve Ellis, who was deputy director of the Bureau of Land Management during the standoff, said in an interview that he “knew that there were a few issues we had” but he acknowledged that some of the misconduct that was alleged “was just stunning.”

Still, Mr. Ellis said that he was concerned that Mr. Bundy’s freedom would set a dangerous precedent.

“What does this say?” he said. “If you don’t like a decision by the Interior Department, you put together an armed gang to get your way?”

But in Paradise this weekend, the mood was one of celebration.

For hours, the Bundys and their allies took turns on a stage fringed by cranberry-colored curtains and manned by armed guards, telling tales of real and perceived government infractions.

The Bundy cattle continue to graze on federal land, and in an interview, Ryan Bundy said he had “no plans” for future confrontations with the federal government, but that he would do “whatever it takes” to protect his family’s freedom.

“I am not a subject, I am not a slave and I am not a serf, and I will not be treated as such,” he said.

A few protesters had braved their way into enemy territory on Saturday, and one held a sign: “Bundy = White Privilege.”

They were well outnumbered by Bundy supporters like Elijah Corrigan, 38, who said he had ridden his horse from his ranch “up on the mountaintop.” Wearing a flattop cowboy hat and kerchief, he said that he had followed the Bundys’ case for years. Their release “means we can stand victorious over the federal government,” he said...

I am writing basically to inform you that we did receive
your latest book in the mail, and want to thank you again for sending a
personal copy. So fascinated by its contents was I, that I managed to consume
the entire 600+ pages in about four days.

It is, I must confess, a monumental
work, but one which will probably not be read by the majority of so-called
‘trads.’ It’s message is too uncomfortable. The major premises of the work
challenge some of our most cherished notions, I’m afraid. It is a veritable
game changer, demanding of the average traditional Catholic intellect a kind of
revisionist thinking which might be too disruptive to closely guarded
prejudices, and far too revolutionary in its scope.

After all, your book does closely link
the Roman Church to ancient pagan magic and philosophy, not to mention the
Jewish Talmud and Caballa, over a period of at least 500 years. Not a linkage
which promises to warm the hearts of most traditional Catholic coreligionists.
Shockingly, it implicates iconic and venerated Catholic church figures in
breathtaking moral failures and crimes, blame for which, earlier, many of us
could easily lay off on Protestants and Jews.

I doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre, were
he alive today, would have received the book gladly. I think you might have
experienced at least some push back, even from him. Why? Because, if I
understand his basic mindset at all, Lefebvre viewed the genesis of the church
crisis stemming in great part from Vatican II, as an almost totally
unanticipated and unexpected event. Pius XII was the last of the “good” popes.
But immediately after his death, while The new springtime’ John XXII held the
door, the church marched out suddenly into the night and fell off the edge of
the earth into total apostasy.

One has to believe that ABL saw it all
as an unfortunate, but temporary, glitch in the history of the church, which,
with an amount of emergency intervention, would eventually be corrected. So
when the post-conciliar apostates and anti-Christs finally died off, or were
otherwise swept away, the real Church could once again re-emerge to assume Her
proper role. Things would go on as they more or less always had. In
anticipation of inevitable restoration, he was motivated, perhaps, to establish
seminaries and train a corp of traditional priests in semi-exile, ready to drop
back in once the crisis was over, and things were normalized.

Your book, though, seems to destroy any such ideas. The
sickness was too deep and of too long duration. V2 was an inevitable eruption,
the final bursting forth of a foul and diseased infection, festering, mostly
subliminally, for centuries, though occasional outbursts had always occurred
historically.

Organizations like the SSPX, by failing
to understand the true dimensions of the crisis, can do little to arrest it.
And believe me, they haven’t.

Michael, we would like to visit with you
in the new year, and let you explain some of the book’s more intriguing and
difficult passages. For example, your lengthy treatment of the Egyptian
obelisk, moved and reset near the front of St Peter’s, at great expense, with
an inordinate number of workers participating (900?). You expended many pages
on this one engineering feat alone. I guess you want to impress upon the reader
the extent to which a caballistic, occult-oriented pope would go (Sixtus V?),
and the energy and effort he would expend in moving and re-planting this
ancient, pagan symbol to the phallus. Is that it?

I’m happy that you give Savonarola his
due. In a half-way healthy church he should easily be considered for sainthood.
I have only one book on this intrepid man of God, a book which I’ve read twice.
It is entitled “Life and Times of Savonarola” by Prof. Pasquale Villari, Scribner’s, 1898. I don’t find it in your
bibliography. Maybe you number Villari among
the Neoplatonists and Hermeticists. I trust that that is not the case. It may
just be a title which is hard to lay one’s hands on.

Tuesday, January 02, 2018

Last week we solicited end-of-the-year donations and thanks to the response of kind benefactors we can now say we have received help from 2% of the readership, rather than the 1% we cited previously.

2% support is something of a joke, but we’ve been on a shoestring budget for so long we are are hardened to it, and this On the Contrary blog, thanks to the handful of generous readers who answered our call for assistance, can now resume for the next several weeks.

Winston Churchill

People have asked us to refute the new movie starring Gary Oldman, about “Saint” Winston Churchill, the man of iniquity who targeted the civilian center of every major German city for merciless fire-bombing. This holocaust of some 600,000 souls is not an issue for Hollywood. The dead were of the wrong religion and nationality. Holocaust denial is permissible with regard to them.

As most of you know the inmates are in charge of the asylum and as long as a mass-murdering barbarian like Churchill, who destroyed the magnificent citadels of western civilization in Germany, is a standard of moral excellence for Conservatives wishing to uphold that civilization, there will be no clear historical vision and the current insanity will prevail. Double-minded people are unstable in all their ways.

They want us to forget that in 2011 monarchial Saudi Arabia assisted the minority-ruled monarchial regime in Bahrain in crushing widespread popular democracy protests by the Shia majority. The Saudis sent in troops and tanks. It seems that was o.k. because the Saudis are Israeli allies and the US has a military base in Bahrain.

The double standard toward protests in Iran and those in Bahrain undercuts the credibility of those who claim to seek to crusade to free Iranians, who by the way do indeed vote in elections, however flawed — while shrugging their shoulders over on-going oppression by the two dynasties that tyrannize Saudi Arabians and the majority in Bahrain.

The whole issue is tainted by U.S. and Israeli “security interests.” If there was genuine support for democracy in the Middle East there would be enormous pressure on the gulf states calling for free elections and an end to rule by two despotic families. Instead, the focus is on “the evil Iranian regime.” The corrosive hypocrisy is missed in the U.S., but not in the Mideast.

Justifying the Ways of God

As 2018 dawns I look upon the next 364 days with hope that something will change drastically in our symptom-obsessed thinking. John Milton, in the opening lines of Paradise Lost, wrote of “justifying the ways of God to man.” Toward that end I hasten to remind our people that the root of all evil is the love of money. The root of the love of money is the renting of it. If you permit the renting of money — if there is no ethical sanction against it — if it isn’t regarded as a shameful practice worse than abortion and sodomy, then you will most certainly be tyrannized by the Money Power.

In endeavoring to justify the ways of God to man, it is necessary to state this truth. Despair and defeatism are tools of The Adversary, yet we open ourselves to those evils when we depart from the ways of God, which are often alien to our corrupt human nature.

The true Church always taught that renting money was worse than murder because it is the root of murder. Abortion is a highly profitable industry. Bans on sodomy invite unprofitable boycotts of states where legislatures might enact it. Yet we focus our most intense revulsion on abortionists and practicing homosexuals — on symptoms rather than the source. Do we believe the Word of God? I wonder how many of us truly do. The love of money is the root of all evil. Is that so difficult to fathom? Is there any force in business, industry, agriculture or the arts and sciences that can compete with compound interest for generating money, or withstand its influence?

The Internet is a fine tool but it has its downside, and of these one is distraction. People’s minds are not as focused as in the days before the Internet and they flit from “solution to solution” and from leader to leader like honeybees traveling from flower to flower. But unlike those busy bees, our people extract not honey, but confusion, which in turn sows discouragement.

Living in north Idaho we witness a large population of Conservatives devoted first and foremost to their personal survival. But he who would save his life will lose it (Luke 9:24). The talented among our own who have dropped out of the combat are too numerous to count. Wayne Gretzky, arguably among the best hockey players in history, famously stated, “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” Many of our people have fled the ice and are not taking their shots.

Why then do we feel superior to Israelis, rabbis, transgender activists, the illegal immigrant lobby and Hillary Clinton supporters? They are not hiding off the grid in mountain redoubts. They are engaged in campaigns. They have faith and hope and resolve. They fight weekly, even daily. Decades ago their views were despised and in the minority. Today they rule us.

God has a plan for our victory. His ways are not our ways, but until we do a better job of getting behind those men and women with the vision to articulate His ways, 2018 will be much the same, or worse, than 2017.

Our Truth Mission: Projects now Underway

1. Editing Daniel Krynicki’s revised and expanded edition of his book History of Money and Usury in America, for digital publication on the Amazon Kindle.

Book projects we intend to commence in 2018: “Against Conformity,” an anthology of this writer’s columns over the past two decades, and a new history, “Hanging Poor Whites,” do not, at present, have funding to proceed.We are hopeful we will obtain the necessary resources so these can see print.

And remember that as much as funding is needed, publicity is also a prerequisite for our success. The silent treatment accorded our books, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome, as well asUsury in Christendom,and our work in general, has been a significant challenge. Please encourage others to obtain, discuss and review our material.

Veteran readers have seen your editor quote Edmund Rostand’s words from his play Cryanno de Bergerac before. They bear repeating at the start of 2018: “The enemy has us surrounded. We shall not let him escape!”